Video: Undercover Liberal Shepard Smith Drops F-Bomb During Rant About "Torture"

by Chris Jones on April 23, 2009 · 8 comments

Shepard Smith has a habit of dropping little tiny stink bomb every once in a while to let people know he’s a liberal. Take a look at Shepard’s latest left-wing rant, which is his most animated to date and comes complete with full throated F-bomb.

Even though I find Shep’s occasional left-wing diatribes mildly annoying, he’s one of the fairest reporters on TV and deserves credit for that.

(Hat tip Gateway Pundit)

Other Posts You Might Like

Share |

DO YOU LIKE THIS STORY?

Tagged as: f-bomb, Fox News, Shepard Smith, Torture, Video

  • Pingback: thehotjoints

  • http://thelibertyactivist.com The Liberty Activist

    Being against waterboarding or torture doesn’t make you a liberal. The Judge is a true conservative/Libertarian and a Constitutionalist and he opposes waterbaoarding and torture.

    Real conservatives and Libertarians are against torture and waterboarding.

    Saying that being against torture makes you a liberal is like saying that a father says his daughter is beautiful is a child molester. I’ve never heard a more asinine statement.

    Besides we know only neo-cons (fake conservatives) are for torture.

  • http://www.thehotjoints.com/ Chris Jones

    I don’t think the judge is a liberal — I just think he’s wrong.

    I don’t think waterboarding is torture and I don’t know too many conservatives who think it is either.

    Furthermore, I don’t believe foreign terrorists should be entitled to the Geneva Conventions or granted any rights whatsoever.

    What I’m in favor of is making captured terrorists to tell what they know. Whatever is necessary to make that happen we should do.

    I haven’t even been to your site, but judging from your use of the term “neo-con” and your whining about torture, you could only be one thing — a PAULNUT!!!

  • http://thelibertyactivist.com The Liberty Activist

    I am not whinning about torture. I am not a paul-nut. I agree with much of what he belives, and I disagree with some of what he says. The truth is there are classic conservatives and New conservatives. I am from the old school like Taft, Goldwater and most of the founding fathers.

    Even Mancow who is for waterboarding (he had it done to him) thought it wasn’t torture til he had it done to him. He is still for waterboarding eventhough he considers it torture now.

    Also those who were rounded up (and considered terrorists – some are and some might not be) deserve a presumption of innosence until proven guilty. Many don’t even have charges against them.

    Eventhough our Constitution is designed to outline what the government can’t do to our citizens and what its duties are (which it has gone way beyond it authority under Democrats and Republicans), the rights outlined in it are from God for all men.

    So, you only beleive in those rights for US citizens. If these rights are only for US citizens, then that means the are derived from The COnstituion, not by God, and that they are granted by government and therefore taken. Thats why the founders wrote that they were from God, so no man or government could take them.

    I am for the saftey of our people, but we must do what is godly and moral to protect it, or we become just like them: lawlwess and consider God given rights disposable.

    terrorists

  • http://thelibertyactivist.com The Liberty Activist

    P.S. Why do you have to resort to ad homin attacks. I haven’t resorted to name calling.

  • http://thelibertyactivist.com The Liberty Activist

    All men have rights given to them by God. The Founders believed that the rights they stated in the US Constitution were universal rights from God to all men, not just US citizens. And that no man or government could take away without due process.

  • http://www.thehotjoints.com/ Chris Jones

    I wasn’t trying to be mean with the Paulnuts comment, I was just giving you a little jazz.

    You make some valid points as far as constitutional issues are concerned, which is what makes this whole debate so complicated.

    I hear what you’re saying, but I also know the reality. We are facing an enemy that follows no rules. No rules of war, no rules of government, no Geneva conventions — nothing. An enemy that is willing to kill himself to kill us.

    When facing a dedicated enemy like that we owe it to the citizens of this great country to do whatever is necessary to save lives no matter how ugly or unseemly it might be.

    I don’t think we should torture every Arab we pick up because he might be a terrorist. But I do think we should rule nothing out when we get our hands on a high value guy like KSM. We KNOW he’s a terrorist and we KNOW he has a lot of information. It’s simply a matter of us having the will and the balls to get that information by whatever means necessary.

    What happened in Abu-Ghraib was a disgrace and had nothing to do with intelligence gathering. It’s important to make that distinction. What was done to those detainees was for the sick and sadistic enjoyment of their Army tormentors.

    They brought shame to the U.S. military and the country as a whole. They also dealt a blow to our national security that is still felt today.

    What I’m in favor of are the extremely limited and tightly controlled enhanced interrogations done by professionals.

    They should have the ability to ratchet up the pressure to whatever levels are necessary to get the guy to talk.

  • Pingback: Silent Majority

Web Analytics